This, the third title in the Early
American Wars series, is a team effort brought to you by Rich Hamilton &
Al Amos – and of course John Tiller. This title focuses on the events in North
America during the Seven Years War, which took place all over the planet, but
mainly in Europe and North America.
If you would like to do more reading on this topic please see the Bibliography
at the bottom of this document.
A lot of time and effort, along with more than one delay, has gone into this
title. Enhancements have been made to the engine to better reflect the realities
of this level of combat and add enjoyment to the player’s experience. Additionally
an abundance of situations have been covered from both a historical perspective
and a hypothetical one to give players as many options as possible. We hope
the mix of historical and hypothetical, large and small, and stand-alone battles
verses campaigns is a good one to satisfy many gamers.

The workload was loosely divided
with Al taking the lead in OOB and historical scenario development. Most of
the base scenarios for the game were of Al’s making and cover many diverse situations
very well. Rich was responsible for map creation, hypothetical campaign creation
and overall development coordination. In the paragraphs that follow you will
find comments from both developers on their style, game features and over-all
intent behind this project. We hope you enjoy your reading here, but most of
all, we hope you enjoy your gaming experience with our latest title.

Al’s Notes

The Last of the Mohicans, Roger’s
Rangers, Wolfe storming the heights at Quebec. All conjure up dreams of romance
and adventure.
My knowledge of the war going into this project was limited to Braddock’s Defeat,
Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the massacre at Ft. William-Henry and a general
feel that this was a war of forts, ambushes, Indians, and Frenchmen. Well most
of that turned out to be true, but there was so much more.

Once my research started for this
project, I was struck by the differences in the cultures clashing. Simplifying
it greatly, there were three basic groups involved: the English, the French
and the Indians. It always struck me funny how the English won a war called
the French and Indian War.

England was poised at the beginning
of this war to become great, and indeed was seeking an opportunity to attain
that greatness. Ambitious men propelled that country into a world power by taking
advantage of opportunities as they presented themselves in North America, India,
the Caribbean and elsewhere. By whittling away at the edge of the French global
empire, England was able to gain the position from which she would surge into
a global super-power 50 years later.

France was still basking in the
glow of the Sun King, although sunset was clearly nearing that country’s preeminent
position amongst the powers of Europe. Finances were strained and a preoccupation
with domestic security all but doomed New France, as the French holdings in
North America were called, before the war ever began.

Indians, called this because Christopher
Columbus thought he had found India on a trip westward to that place. Now days
they are called Native Americans, but that too is a misnomer as they too, immigrated
to North America, years ago from Asia. They comprised many, many nations of
peoples just as in Europe. Their civilizations were just as complex, rich and
fascinating as those in the rest of the world. They did not have the military
strength the Europeans possessed and this, in the end would cost them their
way of life.

The above is a great simplification,
as stated earlier. Each group subdivided down into smaller parts that had differing
dreams and desires. England ruled the colonies, but they, the colonies, strove
to have their own voice in the day-to-day affairs of life. Even colonists were
divided in what they wished for their future, some wished to be left alone,
and others wanted an active role within the fledgling empire. The French were
made up of Canadians and Frenchmen each worried about the security of their
homes. This would eventually put the Canadians into the care of the English
Empire, as those ministers ruling France did not feel the reward of keeping
New France was worth the cost. As mentioned before, the Indians were a people
of many nations. There were Iroquois, Huron, Micmac, Mohawk, Seneca, Ottawa,
Chippewa, Algonkin, Abenakis, Sioux, Fox, Sauk, Delaware, and many, many more.
These groups would shift alliance between the French and English and amongst
themselves as the war progressed to best serve their own interests.

All of the above and many more aspects
created a desire in me to reflect as much of it as possible within the game.
To that end, I tried to bring the different languages into the game through
the order of battles. This was not an easy task as we were working with limited
space for names, titles and unit designations. I hope I didn’t butcher any of
the Indian tongues, or French or English languages too badly in the attempt.

One stereotype I did try
to break was the use of Chief for every Indian leader. Although the different
tribes and clans did have Chiefs, or leaders, these weren’t necessarily military
titles, indeed some positions in some tribes were held by women. They were positions
of leadership for the everyday life. In most tribes any brave could take up
the red hatchet, lead a war party; therefore I used just a name for many of
the Indian leaders. I searched the web and found a few sites on Native American
languages. From these few sites I copied different words for animals, and used
these for the names. The primary language I used was Algonquian and Iroquois.
Here are a few web sites for those interested. (Editor's note- this material
was originally written some time ago, so it is possible that some or even all
of the urls may no longer work; they were included to maintain the original
integrity of this document. -ST)

The war was one of raids
and sieges. Forts took center place on a forest-covered stage. Waterways were
the easiest method of moving troops and supplies through the wilderness, so
the opposing forces would build forts at strategic locations to control these
water-highways.

We were able to get a method
of waterborne movement programmed into the engine to enable us to have a simplified
model of troops using canoes, bateaux, boats and ships. This gives the players
the opportunity to use the water hexes in the game as their historical counterparts
may have. Melees on the water can be quite deadly as there is no retreat. If
forced to leave the hex the defender is eliminated.

A primary feature of a
fort is artillery. Without big guns projecting their power over the waterways
from atop the wooden palisade walls the forts would not have been as important
as they were. Another engine change introduced was emplaced artillery. These
pieces operate very much like ships within the game, except on land. They can’t
move, and they lose automatically in melees. Fortunately, they have no victory
point value when lost in melee and the army doesn’t lose artillery ammunition.
In fact, ships and emplaced artillery don’t use artillery ammunition when they
fire, but the army needs to have at least one round in ‘the bank’ for them to
fire. They do not perform ADF either, which is a good representation of the
slower rate of fire fixed carriage guns up on fort walls or in siege trenches
would have. They are at times more of a liability to the owner than an asset.
However, it is better to have them than not.
Another artillery enhancement is indirect fire; see the rules on how to utilize
it. This will help you ferret out those players who would otherwise hide safely
with their forts.

This war was a contrast
between parade field trained troops and backwoodsmen. In the end the trained
professionals showed they were capable of adapting their instrument of war to
the new conditions they found themselves fighting in. Light troops and ranger
companies were developed to assist battling against the natives – both red and
white men.
The scope and scale of the war fit nicely into a game concept. Forces used overall
were small thus making the battles, historical and what-if, small compared to
European standards.

The theaters of the war
were separated more by wilderness than distance. Events in one theater would
not affect the others until the end of the campaigning season when plans for
next year’s operations were drawn up. Troops committed to taking Ft. Duquesne
could not be recalled and sent to reinforce Ft. Edward rapidly, so early decisions
made would tie one’s hands as the campaigns proceeded.
This aspect lends itself nicely to mini-campaigns, a short campaign with two
or three branches that may enable players to fight one to three linked battles.
Mini-campaigns may fit into most players’ gaming schedules a bit better, too.
When playing a mini-campaign, players will find more options available to them
early on than later, to reflect the importance of initial decisions. There are
a few mini-campaigns included, and a few more are in the works as a later add-on.
When the entire series is available a player will be able to play through the
entire war focusing on one brief episode at a time.

This war also provided
a great variety of battle types. A short list would be siege, amphibious assault,
fortress storming, ambush, raid, and massacre and parade field battle. Although
all these activities can be found in nearly every war they often are overlooked
because of the overall size of forces fielded by the armies. It is hard to design
a game with one scenario involving 120 men on a supply raid and 100,000 men
open field battle in another. The French & Indian War was small enough that
all the various activities can be modeled effectively, and all carried weight
in outcome of the war.

My approach to scenarios
was two-fold. On the one hand, I wanted to present the historical battles as
best I could. On the other, I wanted to design short scenarios that resulted
from player’s decisions within a campaign tree. Many of my scenarios won’t give
players open-ended choices once on the battlefield, but I think the challenges
they present will cause players to play them more than once. I have tried to
include all the various types of battles (raid, siege, assault, etc.)

Please indulge me for one
more paragraph as I wish to thank John and Rich for allowing me to make this
game with them. This was my first game to work on in this capacity and I had
a very steep learning curve to master. Suffice it to say I stumbled many times
in that climb, and they were very patient with me. Rich especially was very
good at reaching out and helping me back up again. Thanks guys, I hope I was
more help than hindrance.

~Al Amos

Rich’s
Notes

Al covered the historical
aspects very well, and his portrayal of them reflects his understanding of the
situation well I think. So, my writings will focus more upon the ideas behind
my contributions and also covering a few more added features in the games.
After working on my last title, The War of 1812, I had some ideas that I wanted
to bring into focus. Not only did I want to create a historically accurate game
recreating the times and events of this action, but I also wanted to explore
some "what if’s?". Additionally, I wanted to put forth a stronger
campaign option than what was offered in 1812, as I feel that is a tremendously
strong aspect of John’s games.

Getting started on the
project I had some discussions with Al and some of our play testers compiling
a list of battles that should be covered in the game. My primary focus at the
beginning was to create the maps for the game, some of which have been brought
over from the two previous titles, 1776 & 1812, and flushed out to fit our
needs. In outlining the areas that would be covered it was quickly found that
many of the situations were not too far apart. So a decision was made to make
several large maps as opposed to a small map for each situation. This would
also allow the sub-mapping feature to be used to "cut out" small maps
for the different situations. It would also allow for larger actions to be played
out over the full map. Most of the maps used in the scenarios are sub-maps,
so several very large maps are included with the game and can be used for custom
scenario creation. There are 3 variants of the Lake George map (with varying
tree cover and labels) 400 x 500 hexes, a large Random map (of no particular
location) 200 x 130 hexes, and then the biggest – Quebec – covering 630 x 630
hexes. Monongahela & Louisbourg are also sizeable maps with variations included.
All in all there is a ton of room for custom work to be done. One thing that
will be noted about these maps is, there are very few names associated with
the various landmarks. I did this on purpose to facilitate the use of these
maps in other situations. A river could be any river, and thereby be used to
represent any action, but when it’s labeled "The Hudson River" it
narrows it down quite a bit. ;o)

Some of the additional
features added to the game that haven’t already been covered are the awarding
of points for loss of supplies. This feature is set by the scenario designer
during creation and not all scenarios utilize this. While supply losses are
not carried forward in the campaigns, it will make players protect them a bit
more. Another change is the "D" weapon type, which has been added
for the Indian units in the game. It has a shorter range (2) and effectiveness
than muskets, which will discourage players from trying to form line and fight
it out with regular troops. This new weapon type also gives them a 50% increase
in effectiveness during melee to reflect their use of many weapons such as the
tomahawk and knife. In fact almost every one of them carried one, where rifles
and muskets were far less prominent.

The "J" weapon
type has also been added. This weapon is used to represent a Heavy Mortar. As
Al noted, Indirect Fire has been introduced in this engine. Well, when you think
of indirect fire you think of mortar’s, and for sieges you need some big one’s.
These boy’s can lob shell’s 40 + hexes and so will be good to sit well behind
the lines and soften up a defender prior to an assault.
Another item that has been changed based on feedback from gamers on 1812 is
that Militia is typed as "I - Infantry" instead of "M - Militia".
The reason for this was that Militia are allowed to go into extended line formation
by the engine, but that is often too strong a formation for these units. When
a unit is in this formation they suffer less casualties and fatigue and move
much quicker around the field. They have a staying power that a regular line
unit can’t stand up to. And due to the large amounts of Militia included in
both games it was determined that this feature needed to be taken away. However
an engine change wasn’t made so that in appropriate circumstances that "type"
could still be used. In a few of the very small scenarios you will still see
a few "true militia" units on the field.
My biggest contribution to the game was the creation of the hypothetical 1758
campaign. Honestly, it brings the European flavor of the Seven Years War to
the game more than the true North American fighting that took place. But I thought
the premise was an interesting one and worth exploring. It also provided the
large campaign feature I wanted that would allow players to engage in up to
9 linked battles. Based on the players decisions it could be as few as 2 as
well, but most paths will generate at least 3 engagements and often more.

Below are two excerpts from
the campaign, the background thoughts and the introductory text:

The Seven Years War had
been raging for over two years now on multiple continents with North America
not being at the center of the world’s attention. The European powers had been
mainly focusing on Europe and events there, with only secondary efforts being
put forth in the new world. 1758 would see that changing.

This is a hypothetical
campaign. In reality Britain began turning more attention on this theater during
'58, but France did not. In this Campaign we will assume that both powers shifted
their focus. Based on the choices the commanders make there will be a chance
to recreate historical battles, hypothetical battles with the same troops, or
larger scale battles with additional troops from Europe and other theaters taking
part. Each commander will be given choices that make him the master of his army’s
destiny, and his countries empire. A failed campaign here will have far reaching
ramifications and will change the face of global politics for years to come.
It is the beginning of the year, but not yet campaigning season. It is time
for you, as the North American Commander, to make a decision for your army.
Shall you concentrate your forces or shall you split them up?

If you concentrate you
can deliver some potentially decisive blows to your enemy at each engagement.
Possibly even bringing them to ground and destroying them in one spectacular
battle. On the flip side, you may venture off and leave your lines desperately
thin, and he may begin to wreak havoc on your cities and towns while you are
in the field.

Alternatively, you can
spread your forces over multiple forts and regions and attempt to accomplish
multiple goals at once. This will possibly allow you to hold on to most, if
not all, of your territory for the year. It may also doom you to defeat after
defeat as the enemies larger forces rolls over your smaller garrisons.

The choice is yours…

Many of the situations
presented in the hypo campaign are large ones. Many players may find these battles
too much to tackle at this small scale. However I feel the over all situation
presented by the campaign is a good one, and will be an enjoyable play. And
as Al noted, for those who either don’t like large battles, or simply don’t
have the time to play them, the smaller mini-campaigns included with the game
will suit them very well. Another point to consider is that this campaign would
be good for Multi-Player gaming, with each player handling a different command
or theater in the war.

In the scenarios I created
for this campaign I approached them with the same thought process I did for
the over-all campaign. Make them as open-ended and player dependant as possible.
So in most of the scenarios you will find the armies starting a sizable distance
apart allowing the commanders to make decisions on how their troops are deployed
and even what forces to commit. For example in the opening scenario of the campaign
the army that is leading off will have most if not all of their entire army
on the map to begin with, arrayed by command structure. This does not mean they
need to commit the entire thing, but rather that they can if they wish. This
puts the burden of force management on the player, rather than in the designer’s
hands. The fact that it is a campaign, and will most likely last several battles
should always be in the players mind. Another reason I included most if not
all of the forces in each battle is that losses carry over. Again, if a commander
gets reckless and commits his whole army then he will pay along the whole line.
A trooper that dies today will not be there tomorrow to help you storm Quebec.

The final notes I will
cover relate to pdt files. We have included a few "alternate" pdt
files with this game. One is for weapon effectiveness (by Curt Good) and is
the same one included with 1812. The notes for that will be inserted below.
Additionally, instead of creating alternate weather variants for every scenario
included with the game (over 150 of them), we decided to include the main_w.pdt
file which when switched out with the regular pdt file will incorporate slower
movement rates and shorter days to model muddy/snowy ground and overcast days.
A pdt file reflecting alternate movement points and costs for the overall game
will also be included. Instructions for use are below:

The primary difference
that players will note between the original PDT file and the optional alternate
PDT file is that the alternate file will produce significantly higher casualties
in certain circumstances. The alternate file is intended to take advantage of
the nuances made possible by the scale of the game (125 feet/42 yards per hex)
to more closely model actual historical lethality patterns. Players should be
aware, however, that there may be a potential cost to their enjoyment of the
game if they fail to adjust their tactics accordingly.
While the musket's inaccuracy was notorious, there is often a tendency to forget
that once the range of engagement began to move inside 100 yards, that inaccuracy
became much less of a practical factor and the lethality of massed musketry
began to rise steeply. While longer ranged duels would tend to be attritional
in nature, close range volleys by formed units were quite capable of ripping
decisive chunks out of the enemy line at a single stroke. Accordingly, pressing
an attack to very close range would usually result in one side or the other
breaking rather quickly. Historically, the offensive role of artillery and skirmishers
was to produce enough prior disorder in the defender's ranks to allow formed
units to survive closing with the defender to the point where they could deliver
decisive close range fire and break the enemy line. Of course, if the defender
was still in relatively good order, the attack might be shredded by close range
defensive fire and break instead, leaving behind a disconcertingly large pile
of bodies.

To put it very simply,
there is a vast difference between the likely consequences of engaging at 125
yards (3 hexes) and the likely consequences of engaging at 42 yards (1 hex).

Modeling this in the game,
however, has its risks. An active debate began among the developers as to whether
players would still enjoy a game in which units could be quickly torn apart
and routed? Would this ruin the game? The alternate view was that tendency of
play testers to close to adjacent hexes was more an artifact of tactics that
they learned in larger scale games, and that in time players would learn to
adjust their tactics to fit the realities of the smaller 42 yard hex scale.
As such, the players themselves would preserve the playability of the game by
becoming more judicious about their decisions regarding when it is or is not
appropriate to press to very close range.

Artillery firepower is
also adjusted in the alternate PDT to create a more historically accurate lethality
footprint given the scale. Accordingly, players using the alternate PDT should
take the following differences into account and be aware of the fact that the
pattern of artillery lethality is somewhat different than that which they may
have become accustom to in larger scale games.
In contrast to the standard PDT, when using the alternate PDT, maximum artillery
lethality is not achieved until range two (84 yards). This was done to represent
the idea that the cone of projectiles formed by a canister round would need
to travel a certain minimum distance before expanding sufficiently to achieve
its maximum potential to generate casualties. (The standard PDT assumes a more
rapidly expanding cone of projectiles than the alternate, and thus produces
the same pattern as players may be familiar with from larger scale games --
i.e. maximum firepower is achieved at range one.) It is left to the player to
decide which model is more appropriate.
Another difference between the standard PDT and the alternate in the area of
artillery effectiveness is that greater allowance has been made in the alternate
PDT for the depth of the canister footprint, especially with respect to larger
caliber loads. The higher firepower values associated with canister reach out
further and drop off more slowly. This means that the alternate PDT tends to
make artillery more effective overall, and particularly more effective in the
84 to 250 yard range band (2 to 6 hexes). Once again, the player is advised
of the potential increase in casualties to be expected when employing the alternate
PDT and is cautioned to adjust his tactics and expectations accordingly.

Note that if you are contemplating
a game with another player as opposed to a solitaire situation, both players
must employ the same PDT file in order for the game to function. The procedure
for substituting the alternate PDT file for the original is as follows.
Start a new game, we will assume it is a PBEM (Play-by-email) game. Without
selecting PBEM Encryption save the file and close the game. Then go into Windows
Explorer or My Computer and browser to your game directory. Find your new game
file (in this example we are going to call it game.bte).

Open the game file by double
clicking on it. If you have never done this before a window will pop up asking
you what program to use to open the file. Choose "Notepad" and click
ok.

A new window will pop up
and you will be looking at the contents of the PBEM file. It will look something
like this:

The line we are concerned with is
the bold one above. The game is currently looking at the Fort Meigs.pdt file.
We are going to change that to Alternate.pdt once you do that you can save and
close the file. You are ready to open the game back up and start playing again.
Your opponent already has the Alternate.pdt file in their directory so no modification
is necessary on their end.
The reason it is suggested that you make the modification to the PBEM file is,
it only effects your current game. If you make the change to the .scn file before
starting the game, and then forget to change it back afterward, every subsequent
game you start will pull the Alternate.pdt file and your opponents may not want
to use that.
A lot of time and effort has been put into this game, and both myself and the
design/testing team hope you enjoy it thoroughly. Keep an eye on the HPS web
site http://www.hpssims.com for patches and expansion packs (new maps, oob's,
campaigns, etc.) and also stop in to my Scenario Design Center (SDC) at - http://www.hist-sdc.com
for add-on’s to this game and all the others by John Tiller and HPS Simulations.

Rich Hamilton
December 5, 2002
Richmond, Virginia

1758 Campaign Notes:

Included here are some
notes on the hypothetical 1758 Campaign which should give you a background on
my thought process in creating it. It will also help you play it a bit better,
knowing how your force is allocated and when you can bring it to bear.
Main Campaign Text - The Seven Years War had been raging for over two years
now on multiple continents with North America not being at the center of the
worlds attention. The European powers had been mainly focusing on Europe and
events there, with only secondary efforts being put forth in the new world.
1758 would see that changing.

This is a hypothetical
campaign. In reality Britain began turning more attention on this theater during
'58, but France did not. In this Campaign we will assume that both powers shifted
their focus. Based on the choices the commanders make there will be a chance
to recreate historical battles, hypothetical battles with the same troops, or
larger scale battles with additional troops from Europe and other theaters taking
part. Each commander will be given choices that make him the master of his army’s
destiny, and his countries empire. A failed campaign here will have far reaching
ramifications and will change the face of global politics for years to come.
Main Branch Text - It is the beginning of the year, but not yet campaigning
season. It is time for you, as the North American Commander, to make a decision
for your army. Shall you concentrate your forces or shall you split them up?

If you concentrate you
can deliver some potentially decisive blows to your enemy at each engagement.
Possibly even bringing them to ground and destroying them in one spectacular
battle. On the flip side, you may venture off and leave your lines desperately
thin, and he may begin to wreak havoc on your cities and towns while you are
in the field.
Alternatively, you can spread your forces over multiple forts and regions and
attempt to accomplish multiple goals at once. This will possibly allow you to
hold on to most, if not all, of your territory for the year. It may also doom
you to defeat after defeat as the enemies larger forces rolls over your smaller
garrisons.
The choice is yours…

Strength Report:
British – The amounts listed here are totals for available British forces in
the coming campaign. They do not include garrison troops at outlying posts nor
auxiliary troops which must be left behind to support the army. These are combat
ready forces. However you must maintain a presence at three points regardless
of your campaign decision. Those points are listed below with the amount of
troops allocated to them. If your choice takes you into the region they occupy
then they will join your force, otherwise they will be a defensive force in
the event of an enemy attack.

Ample supplies for the campaign,
however the number of available supply wagons will decrease on scenarios that
are on the assault to simulate the difficulty in maintaining long supply lines.

Force Allocations:

Defense of Albany and surrounding
areas – New York and Massachusetts Provincials totaling 5070 men.
Defense of Western New York – New Jersey, Rhode Island & Connecticut Provincials
totaling 3364 men.
Defense of Fort Edward and surrounding areas – New Hampshire Provincials and
Battoemen totaling 2300 men.
This leaves a total British force of 21,563 available for the various assault
options. Here’s the break down based on the 5 choices available to the British
commander:

B3 – Western Assault –
All available troops used plus Western New York troops join in. (24,927)

B4 – Two Prong assault
–
Abercrombies Command + Fort Edward Troops + Light Brigade + Auxillary Battalion
+ Marines + 3rd Brigade used in center assault. (13,264)
Amhersts Command + Western New York troops used in Western Assault. (12,471)
Sailors and British Fleet remain in Boston, but can be called to defend Albany
if needed. (1136)

B5 – Defensive Posture
– Same break down as B4 with Abercrombies wing at Albany and Amhersts wing in
Western New York.
Strength Report: French - The amounts listed here are totals for available French
forces in the coming campaign. They do not include garrison troops at outlying
posts nor auxiliary troops which must be left behind to support the army. These
are combat ready forces. However you must maintain a presence at four points
regardless of your campaign decision. Those points are listed below with the
amount of troops allocated to them. If your choice takes you into the region
they occupy then they will join your force, otherwise they will be a defensive
force in the event of an enemy attack.

Force Allocation
Notes: These breakdowns allow each force to bring together a sizeable
striking force, while not being totally defenseless on any front. Additionally
it ensures that there are "layers" to each sides defense. So, if one
force is beaten badly in the first engagement they are ensured of reinforcements
at a later point. In the case of the French they will have a sizeable boost
to their force in either Montreal or Quebec, or both. For the British they have
a sizeable reserve force in Albany, which they’ll need if the French break through.

Situation Report:
British – Crown forces are in relatively good shape. The largest force of provincials
to date has been gathered and is equipped for the coming season. They will mainly
fulfill garrison duties with will free the main British forces for Campaigning.
There are three potential courses to reach your ultimate objective, Quebec.
They are:
Heading West through New York to Lake Ontario, attacking the forts on the Eastern
shore and at the mouth of the lake. Then heading up the St. Lawrence through
Montreal and on to Quebec. A long road overland, but could possibly bring rich
rewards if the forts are not heavily guarded.

Heading almost due North
and retaking Fort William Henry, then pushing on to Fort Toconderoga, Crown
Point, Montreal and then on to Quebec. The most direct route, but also the most
heavily defended in all likelihood.

Heading East by sea, attacking
the fortress at Loiusbourg, then hitting some minor forts along the way like
Fort Beausejour and then on to Quebec. Probably the path of least resistance,
however the French are rumored to have sent a sizeable reinforcement to their
naval fleet. If their Ships of the Line catch your transports underway you stand
to loose thousands of men in the North Atlantic without them being able to fire
a shot. On the other hand, if your force makes it in tact there will be only
one major obstacle between you and Quebec. And if the French are defending another
path, that might turn out to be an easy target.

As always, your orders
are to drive the French from the continent while loosing as few men and material
as possible. As the commander you need to decide what your best course of action
is. The force at your disposal is large enough that you can advance on two fronts
and still stand a reasonable chance of success. Providing they both make it
to their destination. However if you choose to cover all three possibilities
you will change to a defensive stance and will not have an option to take Quebec
this year. While this decision might anger your superiors, it will save your
neck if the French come in strength against the colonies instead of waiting
for your advance.

Situation Report:
French – Finally, the Empire has sent a large number of reinforcements which
will allow you to fight this war the way it needs to be fought. With the additional
troops, supplies, money and ships that have been diverted to you things no longer
seem so dim. At the end of the ’57 campaigning season it looked as if your army,
and the people of New France would be starving this year, but that has all changed.
The Indian allies have begun to reappear as well, giving you a further needed
boost.

Now a choice lays before
you. Shall you reinforce your garrisons along the frontier and at the major
forts? Should you consolidate your troops in the North and await the inevitable
British attack on Quebec? Or should you go on the offensive? Based on your intelligence
reports the British Army is strong, but not that much stronger than your own.
In your current position you have scattered outposts along the major waterways
in either small forts or heavy fortresses. These are good bases to build a defensive
position off of, especially in the central theater around Fort Carillon. However
an assault into New York would throw the British off guard and possibly get
them to rethink their involvement in this war. The gamble being that you don’t
meet their entire army on your way south.

If you do choose to advance
you will do so along one of two different paths. Either down the St. Lawrence,
to Lake Ontario and in from the West toward Albany. Or due South, beginning
with an attack on Fort Edward and then on to Albany. If you are successful in
capturing Albany the British will be forced to negotiate for an end to hostilities
and New France will be secure.

Abbreviations and Terms:
This list is a key for abbreviations and terms used in the oob.